Data From: Evaluating the correlation between genome-wide diversity and the release of plastic phenotypic variation in experimental translocations to novel natural environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenotypic reaction norms are often shaped and constrained by selection and are important for allowing organisms to respond to environmental change. However, selection cannot constrain reaction norms for environmental conditions that populations have not experienced. This may allow cryptic neutral genetic variation for the reaction norm to accumulate such that a release of phenotypic variation occurs when it is exposed to novel conditions. Most genomic diversity behaves as if functionally neutral. Genome-wide diversity metrics may therefore correlate with levels of cryptic genetic variation and, as a result, could exhibit a positive relationship with a release of phenotypic variation in novel environments. To test this hypothesis, we conducted translocations of juvenile brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) from 12 populations to novel uninhabited ponds that represented a gradient of environmental conditions. We assessed reaction norms for morphological traits (body size and four morphometric relative warps) across pond environmental gradients and evaluated the effect of genome-wide heterozygosity on phenotypic variability. All traits displayed plastic reaction norms. Overall, we found some evidence that a release of phenotypic variation consistent with cryptic genetic variation can occur in novel environmental conditions. However, the extent to which this release was correlated with average genome-wide diversity was limited to only one of five morphological traits examined. Our results suggest that the link between genomic diversity and the accumulation of cryptic genetic variation in reaction norms may be limited. Similarly, reaction norms were constrained for many of the morphological traits examined. Past conditions may have constrained reaction norms in the putatively novel environments despite significant deviations from contemporary source population habitat. Additionally, as a generalist colonizing species brook trout may exhibit plastic phenotypes across a wide range of environmental conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".